Interesting from a numbers standpoint, I guess - and looks like a way to justify saying "You need superstars to win the Cup" - which is mostly true.

But I think it leaves out the other three factors I think are just as important:

Roster DepthGoaltendingLack of injuries

If some could throw together an analysis of those 4 factors, I think you might see a true Cup winning formula.

As for the Canucks, I don't see any "Tier 1" (or 2) players on the roster or coming up. Does that mean we can't compete? Can't reach the Conference Finals?

Will we need a couple of Tier 1 players at different positions? One forward, one D (or goaltender)? One at D for sure, right Skyo?

So if we were to take this theory as gospel, then we'll need some high end talent before we win the Cup and we'll need to draft them. With the lottery in place, we could end up never drafting that high end talent the article implies that we need.

So - as a GM - do you build a competitive team that is entertaining to watch, or do you try to build a Cup winner?

Cornuck wrote:Interesting from a numbers standpoint, I guess - and looks like a way to justify saying "You need superstars to win the Cup" - which is mostly true.

But I think it leaves out the other three factors I think are just as important:

Roster DepthGoaltendingLack of injuries

I don't think anyone will deny that a team needs (at least) solid goaltending to win a Cup, but it seems to me that the difference in quality between the best goaltenders in the league and the least capable has been shrinking in recent years, and that now almost any NHL goalie is capable of going on the kind of in-the-zone hot streak that can carry a team through the playoffs. This is probably down to advances in coaching and technique.

Injuries have a large stochastic component, but some are more resistant, or more vulnerable, than others, and I think that when building a roster, it is important to remember that 'resistance to injury' is an important part of a player's talent profile. (An under-appreciated feature of the Sedins' game, it seems to me.) This relates in some degree to the 'does size matter ?' question.

Cornuck wrote:So if we were to take this theory as gospel, then we'll need some high end talent before we win the Cup and we'll need to draft them. With the lottery in place, we could end up never drafting that high end talent the article implies that we need.

Just in case Canucks fans weren't depressed enough.

Remember, though, that there is also a large component of luck in identifying and selecting the best player available at any draft position. Not to say that every GM who picked ahead of him was stupid, but it remains at least possible that Benning drafted the most talented player the 2017 draft class.

Cornuck wrote:So - as a GM - do you build a competitive team that is entertaining to watch, or do you try to build a Cup winner?

I think that becomes a business decision based on the franchise's assessment of the buying preferences of the local fanbase.

My own solution (as proposed on this board) is to build a team that will be satisfying to watch lose hockey games, while still trying to draft the level of talent needed to win a championship.

Well, he is writing for Hockey News so I guess he knows a little, very little.Honestly I think your boy Dom there is just filling up empty summer space.I see a ton of holes in his reasoning and as mentioned above, there are very serious other factors.Note how many 2 time winners. Experience ? In particular with LA.You can make stats look like almost anything you want to.What about the teams that had at least that much, if not more, star power, that didn't win a cup during those years ?I can think of two or three.

Ronning's Ghost wrote:I don't think anyone will deny that a team needs (at least) solid goaltending to win a Cup, but it seems to me that the difference in quality between the best goaltenders in the league and the least capable has been shrinking in recent years, and that now almost any NHL goalie is capable of going on the kind of in-the-zone hot streak that can carry a team through the playoffs. This is probably down to advances in coaching and technique.

Agreed 100% - and by 'goaltending', I don't mean that your starter has to be a 'top tier' player - but just a guy that can string together the mental stamina to win 16 games.

I keep thinking back to WCE era Canucks and when we had some of the top players in the league, but our goaltending couldn't get it done.

It's why we hope Pettersson and Dahlen can overachieve in two/three years, they are a different breed of Swedish players vs the Sedins, much more slick with sick dangles.If both can be tier 2, along with Horvat continuing to score 50+ points each season, if those three along with Boeser - if he can rise to star power scoring wise, we could have multiple players in the higher tiers to justify not having a tier 1 player.

A lot of IF's hanging on those 4, but if they can reach their highest potential, it's feasible to win a Cup with that writer's formula to win a championship in the NHL.

So to win a Cup, all you need is one guy from each tier and you’re set, right? Well, not really. You don’t necessarily need one from each – no team is actually built like that – just as long as you have enough star power to split the difference. For example, a team might not need a Tier 1 guy at all if they have multiple Tier 2 or 3 players...

The only tier one's we've had in Canucks history was Pavel Bure and the Sedins, somewhat Naslund.

Bure and the Sedins were earned/acquired by the team with due diligence, hard work and a bit of luck, by Pat Quinn and Burke respectively, no luck of the lotto draw.Naslund was a lucky trade.

It is also why it's WHO you have on your team which can be vital for certain rare moments like that.

Going off here, I guess it's key we keep Goldobin and let him thrive here, he has the scoring potential to be an NHL star as well with Boeser, so if we get one Russian going here scoring wise & then lock him up long term, it will help in acquiring/keeping Russians here for the future, notably a one potential top tier Tryamkin who has the toolbox to dominate the NHL if he can put it all together in 2-3 years.

This current team does has a lot of potential, but it's a wait and see if these youngsters can start to execute that potential to become NHL stars soon.

I think absolutely everyone on this board would agree that potential is really all we have right now. In some cases it is promising potential. In others, we just have to wait and see. But I still refuse to follow the anal guys. too much effort for me to try and understand it all.

Mondi wrote:The potential we have is a long list of B/B+/A- prospects. We still need our Matthews.

Interesting. Maybe, maybe not. One superstar, or one great line, can get shut down. Maybe in a salary cap league, the structure to aim for is a first line that is the 20th best in the league, but defensively reliable, supported by second and third lines that are maybe the 34th and 40th best lines in the league. That is to say, rather than three 7 million dollar forwards, three 4 million dollar forwards, three 3 million dollar forwards, and some roster-fillers, a team is better off with three 5 million dollar forwards, three 4.5 million dollar forwards, three 3.5 million dollar forwards, and a proportionately upgraded fourth line. (All salaries approximate, and assuming players performing at their salary level. Yes, you also need young players out-performing their salaries to win it all; this was just an illustration to flesh out the idea.) Somewhere down the line-up, you get a favourable matchup. If the Sedins had shown the playing longevity for which I had hoped, the Canucks might have been in line for such a structure in the next couple of seasons.

Maybe you need that Norris-calibre stud defenceman SKYO has always wanted, or maybe you're better off with 4 defencemen who are top-two on most teams, and six who are top-four on most teams. Even if you're trying to build a durable team, injuries are all but certain. As Cornuck said, you need depth. Superstars are actually an impediment to depth.

Ronning's Ghost wrote:Maybe you need that Norris-calibre stud defenceman SKYO has always wanted, or maybe you're better off with 4 defencemen who are top-two on most teams, and six who are top-four on most teams. Even if you're trying to build a durable team, injuries are all but certain. As Cornuck said, you need depth. Superstars are actually an impediment to depth.

When was the last team to win a Stanley cup without a superstar? Carolina? Ward was certainly playing like one...

Ronning's Ghost wrote:Maybe you need that Norris-calibre stud defenceman SKYO has always wanted, or maybe you're better off with 4 defencemen who are top-two on most teams, and six who are top-four on most teams. Even if you're trying to build a durable team, injuries are all but certain. As Cornuck said, you need depth. Superstars are actually an impediment to depth.

When was the last team to win a Stanley cup without a superstar? Carolina? Ward was certainly playing like one...

That's probably the best example. Has any GM attempted to deliberately follow the model I proposed ?

There is also a bit of a chicken-and-egg phenomenon. If you captain a team to the Stanley Cup Championship, you are, by dint of that achievement, at least a star, if not a superstar, even in the absence of any other qualifying accomplishment, and will be paid like one. So, even if it worked once, it would be hard to repeat with the same roster.

Hockey Widow wrote:I think absolutely everyone on this board would agree that potential is really all we have right now. In some cases it is promising potential. In others, we just have to wait and see. But I still refuse to follow the anal guys. too much effort for me to try and understand it all.

I don't follow the anal guys because I don't want to step in anything that might fall out.